| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2004 08:05:09 AM · #1 |
What color mode do you shoot in? My camera is set up to Adobe 1998 (II) which I sued because in the manual it basically says that if you post process your images, this is better.
However, I am fairly disappointed with the dullness that they come out with - so i did some research.
I found this site, and the changes are obvious.
Does anyone know the benefit of shooting in Adobe 1998 (II)?
Here is the site - you need to scroll down to "Color Mode"
Color Modes
Message edited by author 2004-09-02 08:07:06. |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 08:09:51 AM · #2 |
The web is not a useful place to display a meaningful sRGB vs AdobeRGB comparison, since almost all web browsers ignore any embedded color profile and display everything as if it were sRGB. So the "dullness" of the AdobeRGB pic in the sample page you linked to is just because it is being displayed in a web browser. That same image, opened in a color-managed application such as Photoshop, would look identical to an sRGB-tagged image. (It is imperative that you convert your photos from AdobeRGB to sRGB before uploading them to a web site such as DPC).
For what it's worth, check out this article...
Message edited by author 2004-09-02 08:15:38. |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 08:19:59 AM · #3 |
So am I correct in saying that most printers will use sRGB and on the web it's converted (pretty much) to sRGB?
If so surely we should all use sRGB for our camera profile and screen profile?
How can I check what color mode I am working in photoshop?
I seem to be missing a lot of good stuff here :D |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 08:30:41 AM · #4 |
My photoshop uses color mode sRGB - so all my Adobe RGB shots are converted to sRGB.
Over on luminous landscapes they say to shoot on Adobe RGB and have your photoshop color space in Adobe RGB.
I am lost
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 09:35:59 AM · #5 |
The interesting quote for me from that smartshooter article was, "FACT ONE: there are no printers with a color space (aka output space) that is larger (holding more volume of data) than sRGB."
This was followed up by: "...if you shoot in sRGB and you plan to print it on an in-house printer, or you will be sending it to a portrait lab for printing, there̢۪s no need to ever convert the file into the Adobe RGB space. In fact, it̢۪s a waste of valuable time. If you shoot in sRGB, open in Photoshop in sRGB (assuming sRGB is your Photoshop RGB working space) then print in a space that̢۪s smaller than sRGB, why force the file into the larger Adobe RGB space in the process?
Don̢۪t forget these two facts:
1) every time you convert your data - you lose some data and distort more, and
2) portrait labs want files in sRGB, not Adobe RGB."
Seems pretty convincing that there's no real reason to capture in RGB given that no output device can match the RGB color space. The added benefit is that sRGB is a defacto standard in viewing things on the web and in many viewers, while you need ICC profiles to properly remap the RGB space into a printer's capabilities.
Great article!
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 09:46:42 AM · #6 |
I can't offer much technical basis, but I shoot in sRGB with my 300D and I've not had any complaints from people buying my shots or from the magazines I've been published in.. I probably should educate myself on the proper spaces to use/etc, but I've been ok so far..
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 10:10:51 AM · #7 |
OK - after reading this I am a little lost.
I shot a series of shots in Adobe 1998 (II), and the colors were very dull, like the other shots posted in this forum.
I have since experiement and like the enhanced sRGB (III). I like the comment it's like "digital Velvia".
My question is: Is there a good or proper way to convert an Adobe 1998(II) to sRGB to re-establish the pop on the colors?
Thanks....
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 10:42:12 AM · #8 |
I tried to look up precise info about this but failed.
My nikon has raw file format which supports 12bits/channel. JPEG is 8 bits/channel. Now what I found out was that adobe 1998(II) color space has a "wider gamut". In technical terms this implies more bits/channel?
Why is this wider gamut better then? It is not if you use your images in the web and they are viewed with a monitor. Monitors are mostly capable of showing colors only about 8 bits per channel. But many pro color printers etc. are capable of printing more detailed information, so the benefit comes there when using wider color space.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 11:08:31 AM · #9 |
Not 100% sure, but this is my understanding:
A gamut is a representation (in this case numeric) of various colours. The wider the gamut the more colours it is able to represent. In the case of Adobe RGB, its gamut is wider than sRGB, so certain colours (shades of green) can be better covered. Although the same number of bits, it's how WELL those bits as used.. AFAIK..
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 11:31:43 AM · #10 |
Forgive me for I am about to start blowing off a little steam...
I love creating images with my camera. I love sharing my work even more; With a customer who buys a print, a client who needs an image for their design, or a with a family member to whom I give a print as a gift. But as I progress further, I find that I spend more time trying to figure out stuff like color modes, color management, digital workflow, resampling, etc., etc. then I do taking pictures. Is it just me or does anyone else find this ironic? The pictures are why we get into this quagmire in the first place!
For me, the print is the final reward to this process. But in order to share (i.e. sell) that print, I have to make it as attractive as possible which usually means that I gotta put it on a website somewhere without completely screwing it up.
It seems that there are ten different ways to do just about everything in this digital capture game. I just wish somebody would come up with some standards. Wouldn't that be lovely?
Ok - thanks guys. I feel better now!
Now tell me which freaking color space I should use! :-D |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 12:18:25 PM · #11 |
Yes I am lost - totally.
Luminous Landscapes (a highly regarded photography site) say this.
Depending on your camera, you will want to set its colour set point to either a provided profile, or equivalent colour space. If this sounds vague, it's because it is. This varies from camera to camera. For example, the Canon 1D and 1Ds have a setting called Color Matrix 4 which is the equivalent of Adobe RGB. Unless you have a compelling reason for it to be set otherwise, this is a preferable setting.
And also this...
When the file comes into Photoshop from your RAW converter you will be asked how to treat it. Select convert to working profile, which should be set to Adobe RGB, unless you have a good reason to set it otherwise.
The whole artcile is good reading.
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/digital-workflow.shtml |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 12:21:36 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Yes I am lost - totally.
Luminous Landscapes (a highly regarded photography site) say this.
Depending on your camera, you will want to set its colour set point to either a provided profile, or equivalent colour space. If this sounds vague, it's because it is. This varies from camera to camera. For example, the Canon 1D and 1Ds have a setting called Color Matrix 4 which is the equivalent of Adobe RGB. Unless you have a compelling reason for it to be set otherwise, this is a preferable setting.
And also this...
When the file comes into Photoshop from your RAW converter you will be asked how to treat it. Select convert to working profile, which should be set to Adobe RGB, unless you have a good reason to set it otherwise.
The whole artcile is good reading.
//www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/digital-workflow.shtml |
Well, I think (and I could be very wrong here) the point of working in Adobe RGB is that the wider color gamut offers you more leeway while manipulating. While it's true that a printer isn't going to give you nearly as many colors, it's always best to work with more colors and interpolate down. The more color information you start out with, the better. |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 01:02:44 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Seems pretty convincing that there's no real reason to capture in RGB given that no output device can match the RGB color space. The added benefit is that sRGB is a defacto standard in viewing things on the web and in many viewers, while you need ICC profiles to properly remap the RGB space into a printer's capabilities.
|
The article is misleading. Color spaces are not as simple as Russian nesting dolls. sRGB is the lowest common denominator, but if that floats your boat, sail on! |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 01:28:32 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
The article is misleading. Color spaces are not as simple as Russian nesting dolls. sRGB is the lowest common denominator, but if that floats your boat, sail on! |
My interpretation was a bit different... The article suggested that printers, including very high end ones, typically have a "gamut" or spectrum of possible colors whose width is less than sRGB, and certainly less than RGB. By default, both RGB and sRGB have ranges that fall outside the printer's capabilities unless they are remapped using ICC profiles in which case sRGB can be represented.
So, it seems (to me) you are correct in that sRGB may be the least common denominator, but if your final output device can never exceed it will you ever realize a benefit from working above that denominator? Not trying to argue, just trying to better understand your point since your posts are typically insightful for me.
The other point I wanted to drill deeper into is whether or not starting out in RGB truly gives you more leeway for image editing degradation. I can see where starting out in RAW 12 bit images has this effect, but I'm not sure the analogy translates directly to color spaces. The pixel values in RAW are just raw sensor data which needs to be reduced into something. At that point I think you're only dealing with standard image detail, which is not independent of color space. I'd love it if an expert in graphic arts could jump in and clarify this!
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 01:35:21 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by digistoune:
Now tell me which freaking color space I should use! :-D |
No kidding! Or at least find a clear, well documented explanation of which to use in which circumstances. I don't mind having choices but it's really frustrating when you can't find an accurate explanation of the differences.
It sounds like for basic point n shoot print making sRGB makes for the easiest workflow and most default compatibility. The ambiguity seems to be in the area of fine art prints. I'm wondering if the answer is different based on output device - for example, an Epson 2200 (high end consumer model) vs. a photo lab? And if some devices can print in a wider RGB gamut, are they realistically only used in medical imaging, or are they within reality for consumers?
The more I know, the less I understand :)
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 01:51:17 PM · #16 |
Is there a formula (simple or otherwise) that answers this question:
How can I have the color of images I upload to my PC and work in PhotoShop = the color of the version I save for the Web = the color of the image I print on my inkjet?
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 01:53:22 PM · #17 |
Well after 2 hrs of reading, I am pretty sure that the professionals almost exclusivly use Adobe RGB...but then i could be wrong :)
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 02:06:41 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by jonpink:
Well after 2 hrs of reading, I am pretty sure that the professionals almost exclusivly use Adobe RGB...but then i could be wrong :) |
LOL! Yes! That's the crux of my frustration... in an effort to do this the 'right' way, we devour books, articles, and websites of the pros to see if we can assimilate their workflow into ours. But some do it this way and some do it that way and it works for them. I don't think anybody has the definitive formula for what the 'right' way is.
Me? I use RGB in PS and in camera 'cause that's the method that seems to be the general concensus. In other words, I'm just trying to muddle through the best I can! ;-) |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 05:21:31 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
My interpretation was a bit different... The article suggested that printers, including very high end ones, typically have a "gamut" or spectrum of possible colors whose width is less than sRGB, and certainly less than RGB. By default, both RGB and sRGB have ranges that fall outside the printer's capabilities unless they are remapped using ICC profiles in which case sRGB can be represented. |
I'm not sure what you mean when you talk about RGB and sRGB in the same context. RGB is basically a co-ordinate system, whereas sRGB is a cloud within that system. Perhaps you mean Adobe RGB (1998) or something else?
Regardless, printers (well, we should really say printer-paper combinations) are also capable of producing colors which are outside sRGB. Similarly, sRGB contains colors which cannot be produced on printer-papers. Sure, volumetrically, sRGB is larger than most (all?) printer color spaces, but that's like comparing shoe sizes by talking about body weight. sRGB is filled with visible colors (colors detectable by human vision), but it does not contain all of them. Adobe RGB (1998) is not immune to these issues, but it is less so.
Originally posted by cghubbell:
So, it seems (to me) you are correct in that sRGB may be the least common denominator, but if your final output device can never exceed it will you ever realize a benefit from working above that denominator? Not trying to argue, just trying to better understand your point since your posts are typically insightful for me. |
Yes, there is a camp that believes that one shouldn't do anything in 16-bit or any of the available wide(r than sRGB) spaces, saying that there is little to be gained and much to be lost (in terms of time and resources). As I stated above, printer spaces are not safely nestled inside sRGB and they vary considerable. The same is true of monitor capabilities. A really, really wide space like ProPhotoRGB contains colors that can't even be reproduced by your monitor, so you have to be extremely careful if you decide to edit in that space.
There's another camp that says go high (bit) and wide (gamut) as soon as possible and stay there for as much work as you can stand. Yet another camp says to edit directly in the output space since anything else is getting tossed eventually (probably not a good idea if you do much editing to the image though). It's just a big camping party.
Some say Adobe RGB (1998) is too wide for extreme 8-bit editing, but they are probably much in the minority. To be safe I use something in between sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) when working (really working - like mucho editing) in 8-bit and have no other choice.
Part of the point of using an appropriately sized working space is that it responds more reasonably to editing. The wider you start going with your editing space though, the more you have to consider bit depth issues. A wider space gives you more latitude in terms of print device/media choices (in the present and future) and you can make appropriate color adjustments with fewer constraints.
But, my point still stands. If you're happy with the results you're getting, what else really matters?
Originally posted by cghubbell:
The other point I wanted to drill deeper into is whether or not starting out in RGB truly gives you more leeway for image editing degradation. I can see where starting out in RAW 12 bit images has this effect, but I'm not sure the analogy translates directly to color spaces. The pixel values in RAW are just raw sensor data which needs to be reduced into something. At that point I think you're only dealing with standard image detail, which is not independent of color space. I'd love it if an expert in graphic arts could jump in and clarify this! |
Well, RAW converters (like Adobe Camera Raw) typically do standard manipulations in the linear space of the device (before gamma is applied). Also, you can choose a target space, at least in ACR, that is much wider than your device (like ProPhotoRGB). I'm having a little trouble understanding where you're going with this train of thought. Perhaps you could elaborate.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 05:27:02 PM · #20 |
Not everyone has the same profiles available ... I'm typically using Photoshop 5.0 which does have sRGB, but not AdobeRGB; it has a bunch of others though (Apple RGN, Monitor RGB, CIE RGB, etc.).
Mine (Photoshop) seems to be set for sRGB everywhere that's a choice and I haven't seemed to have any (color) problems with my photos ... I have no idea how to tell what (if any) profile any of my cameras use. |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 05:31:18 PM · #21 |
I only shoot in Adobe RGB 1998.
The easiest way to convert them is to use sRGB as your working space in photoshop. Then when you open the original files, it will ask what you want to do with the file, choose convert to working space.
Then when you save the image, make sure you check to keep the color space sRGB.
And that's it, the benefit of the wider gamut, converted into sRGB.
------
Currently I don't have a copy of photoshop, so I shoot in raw and use the Nikon software, which seems to save it in sRGB.
Message edited by author 2004-09-02 17:34:54.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 06:07:30 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by jadin:
And that's it, the benefit of the wider gamut, converted into sRGB. |
At what point does it become beneficial?
See this thread for some sample workflows I posted. None of them is my workflow (my workflow is not constant). I would probably ignore Workflow 2 since most people don't have camera profiles (and there is good argument against them being useful anyway). I would add another intermediate workflow, 2x:
Workflow 2x: Adobe RGB and the new you
1. Set camera to JPEG and Adobe RGB
2. Edit in this wide-gamut working space
2a. Probably save your intermediate work
4. Soft-proof and/or convert to target output device(s) (e.g. use sRGB for web display)
As EddyG said, it's important to actually convert from Adobe RGB to sRGB when saving for the web. You should certainly convert your print file to sRGB if using DPCprints for printing. You can soft proof your DPCprints-intended image using the ezprints profiles, but you must still convert to sRGB.
Personally, I would say the benefits of RAW outweight the color space/bit depth benefits. That is, if you're currently shooting JPEG/sRGB, I would make your next step RAW/sRGB. Don't use 16-bit with sRGB (or you can try it just to see if you care what happens). Adobe RGB would be a next step and it's a good transition work space (i.e. you can use it without too much worry whether you're in 8-bit or 16-bit mode). |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 06:49:52 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by jadin:
And that's it, the benefit of the wider gamut, converted into sRGB. |
At what point does it become beneficial? |
The point is that you are capturing a wider gamut. You get more colors, which can produce a better looking image. When you save that same image without converting it to sRGB it looks bland. Just like the original poster complained about. But when you convert it, and save with the new color space, most of the colors are kept and converted into sRGB colors.
You tell me, which one looks better?
sRGB:
adobe RGB 1998 converted to sRGB:
Message edited by author 2004-09-02 18:51:17.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2004 08:12:30 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jadin:
The point is that you are capturing a wider gamut. You get more colors, which can produce a better looking image. When you save that same image without converting it to sRGB it looks bland. Just like the original poster complained about. But when you convert it, and save with the new color space, most of the colors are kept and converted into sRGB colors. |
No one is questioning the previously given advice to convert web-intended images to sRGB. However, your advice was to take Adobe RGB images, convert immediately to sRGB, and continue working in sRGB. If you plan on working in sRGB, you should probably just shoot in sRGB. Your camera (or raw converter) will almost certainly do a more accurate/correct conversion from the raw data. The generally accepted advice is that if you're going to work with Adobe RGB sourced images, you should probably stay in Adobe RGB until you're ready to prep for web/print/whatever. Personally, I think Adobe is sometimes too wide for 8-bit images (esp. the photographic kind), but that's my preference.
Originally posted by jadin:
You tell me, which one looks better? |
Well, they're certainly different, but whichever one is better is matter of taste I think. Is there banding in the Adobe RGB converted one? I can't really tell with images that size. Are these same-sourced images? How did you get them into sRGB and Adobe RGB in the first place? I don't recall seeing that kind of red shift in Adobe RGB to sRGB conversions. Which rendering intent did you use? |
|
|
|
09/02/2004 09:32:52 PM · #25 |
Well when you convert them was irrelevant to my method of converting them. I was just trying to say how to convert them.
The original image was shot in Adobe RGB. I then opened the sRGB file directly into Paint Shop Pro, which unfortunately does not support working in different profiles, so the image opens as sRGB no matter what you do.
The adobe conversion was opened in Nikon Capture, which supports the color space. I then did a save as tiff which automatically saved it as sRGB. I think I set my options to do it that way.
The results are as you saw. I have full sized if you really want to see them.
|
|
